Remove this Banner Ad

News Tunbridge cops three weeks.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monocle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

MRP once again come up with a howler, 180 degree turn on last weeks "nothing to see here move along" for the Heroes at Hawkland.

To be a protected species would make things a lot easier to know what you can do, anything.

Would love to see the phantom strike that was worth 2 weeks down to one. Didn't notice it watching the game and has not been brought up until this ridiculous decision.
 
It was a dangerous tackle but one that only gets a suspension if a player is hurt and is rarely, if ever penalised during the game. Gaff was slung in a tackle when he had gone out of bounds late in the game which was no less dangerous than Tunbridge's tackle - the difference was Gaff was no longer trying to dispose of the footy because he had crossed the boundary so was able to protect himself unlike Kennedy who was trying to get rid of the footy.

I'm happy with the 2 weeks if they apply this standard against all sling tackles but we all know that won't happen and hasn't happened in the past

Tunners is entitled to consider himself a smidge unlucky but it's not something I think the club will or should appeal

No idea what the other week was for as no vision has been provided and nothing was highlighted during the game
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Shame for the guy, may actually be the end of his career sadly. Just as he was starting to get games
 
MrKK said:
Striking charge is bizarre. This board has probably watched 1000 replays of that game and no-one has any idea what incident it even refers to.
Click to expand...
Just saw a bit of footage on the abc, by the time I located them on the screen all I saw was Tunny running towards the contest and the other bloke doubled over. Backhander as he ran off maybe.
 
Stretcher came out, suspension mandated.

Rules are stuffed - one arm free, the only option is let the player get his kick away. If both arms were pinned, that I get, but it's just a complete farce this. Unlucky Tunners, one of the Good Blokes will get off the same charge this time next week too to rub salt.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Just something to ponder, here's a tackle from earlier in the match:

image.png
image.png

image.png
Now is the action illegal, or just the outcome? Keeping in mind that Butler, though made of paper mache suffered no ill effects.
 
Just saw the striking incident on AFL 360. Clearly intentional. He deserves a week for it. But it's ****ing outrageous that he gets a week and Boomer gets a fine for doing essentially the same thing. As Mike Sheehan said - they've contrived a way to get him off, as they did with Cyril.
 
Bender_ said:
Just something to ponder, here's a tackle from earlier in the match:

View attachment 277151
View attachment 277152

View attachment 277153
Now is the action illegal, or just the outcome? Keeping in mind that Butler, though made of paper mache suffered no ill effects.
Click to expand...
If you trust the AFL to make decisions based on fairness and precedent, then you are a crazier person than me. All about which teams/players are thier most marketable and who the media makes a beat up about.
 
Smeg Head said:
If you trust the AFL to make decisions based on fairness and precedent, then you are a crazier person than me. All about which teams/players are thier most marketable and who the media makes a beat up about.
Click to expand...

It's not so much confusion about the suspension, I think the style of tackle is supposed to be the issue. Now they've come down on the sling tackle the past couple of years so I'm not surprised at Tunbridge's suspension, I think it's just weird to have the action acceptable, but not the outcome. It's like saying it's fine to bump someone fair in the hip and shoulder, but only if you don't injure them. It's ridiculous.

FWIW I think the holding of the arm tackle is great and shouldn't be outlawed.
 
Bender_ said:
It's not so much confusion about the suspension, I think the style of tackle is supposed to be the issue. Now they've come down on the sling tackle the past couple of years so I'm not surprised at Tunbridge's suspension, I think it's just weird to have the action acceptable, but not the outcome. It's like saying it's fine to bump someone fair in the hip and shoulder, but only if you don't injure them. It's ridiculous.

FWIW I think the holding of the arm tackle is great and shouldn't be outlawed.
Click to expand...
We all know the MRP is massively reactionary. No.1 criteria for any suspension: How bad did the incident look? This one looked bad because of the amount of time it took for Kennedy to be attended to and stretchered off. Doesn't help that the system also penalises quite significantly anyone challenging them.
 
Smeg Head said:
We all know the MRP is massively reactionary. No.1 criteria for any suspension: How bad did the incident look? This one looked bad because of the amount of time it took for Kennedy to be attended to and stretchered off. Does help that the system also penalises quite significantly anyone challenging them.
Click to expand...

Yeah the entire scene afterwards basically signed and sealed Tunbridge's suspension. Just as baffling is it wasn't a free kick at the time.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I should clarify, the weightings and points of the new MRP is mostly all good (elbows and off the ball stuff are undervalued IMO) but they have zero consistency in how they decide whats Intentional, Reckless or High Impact etc.
 
Classic example of the afl making an example of a west Aussie club player knowing we are less inclined to make it an issue due to distance and no Vic media uproar. Just like they did a few years back to that freo dicker with that bump.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom